№ 2, 2024 year

Dostoevsky has been successfully translated into different languages. He remains himself even in unsuccessful translations. Every translation is an interpretation. Interpretations include not only critical publications, but also theatrical productions and screen adaptations. Translations and interpretations expand the corpus of Dostoevsky’s texts. Translation is universal. Dostoevsky is in demand for translations not only into foreign languages, but also from Russian into Russian: manuscript to printed text, printed text to multimedia format. Over the last hundred years, the graphics, orthography and punctuation of the Russian language have changed. Changes in the language distort the meaning of Dostoevsky’s works. Both the shortcomings and the achievements of Soviet and post-Soviet textology are most fully presented in the Complete Works of Dostoevsky. They resulted in the amended texts of the writer, which, in turn, required new translations into foreign languages. The concept of “Dostoevsky’s Pentateuch” is tentative. Had Dostoevsky lived longer, he may have written more great novels: not five, but six or more. And now “Poor People,” “Notes from the Dead House,” “Notes from Underground,” “Diary of a Writer” are added to Dostoevsky’s five great novels . Of the different Pentateuchs, there are two personal ones: one by Moses, the other by Dostoevsky, which was immediately labeled “great.” The concept of the “great Pentateuch” has many authors. It became common place in conference debates as early as the 1970s. At first, it was a rhetorical figure that stated the number of Dostoevsky’s famous novels. At present it is a concept that expresses the ideological content, genre and poetics of the writer’s late novels.Dostoevsky, novel, Pentateuch, translation, interpretation, concept, thesaurus, cultural code

The notebook of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s widow for the fatal 1881 is the most sought-after by the writer’s biographers. It contains the notes made by Anna Dostoevskaya for herself about her late husband within a few months after his death, according to the most recent memories of him. On paper, using shorthand signs in some cases, she recorded joint purchases, gifts received from her husband, his characteristic words, habits, tastes, manner of bearing, dressing, reciting aloud, peculiarities of eating, conversation, creative work (including the January issue of “A Writer’s Diary,” published after Dostoevsky’s death), recorded information related to the writer’s childhood years spent in Moscow, as well as the last days and hours of his life, the details of the funeral and funeral service, the children’s memories of their father. These recordings have already been published, but not in full and in violation of the sequence. Despite their fragmentary nature, unformulated into processed memories, and chaotic arrangement, they have their own composition and logic. The memoirist structures the farewell text with a dear person who continues to live in her memory in a specific way: she opens the entries with sketches of the writer’s plans for the next 10 years, and concludes with a dialogue about children as successors of the Dostoevsky family. Memories of the writer are not the only materials in the composition of Anna Dostoevskaya’s notebook. It also includes other documents of historical and literary value (bills, receipts, receipts, address records, letters, a newspaper clipping with an obituary about Doctor of Medicine Ivan Verevkin, etc.), a comprehensive review of which is presented for the first time in this article. In the course of the study, corrections were made to the previously transcribed text of Anna Dostoevskaya’s transcripts (by the Leningrad stenographer Ceciliia Poshemanskaya), errors in the manuscript rendition made in previous publications of this document were corrected. In the Appendix to the article, memoirs from Anna Dostoevskaya’s notebook of 1881 are published in full, accompanied by historical and literary commentaries based on the latest achievements of the study of Dostoevsky’s work.Fyodor Dostoevsky, Anna Dostoevskaya, notebook, archive, transcript, textual criticism, commentary, memory, remembrance, farewell

The article introduces the results of archival research devoted to the family of the eldest of F. M. Dostoevsky’s sisters, V. M. Karepina. Vital records (records of birth, wedding, death) of Varvara Mikhailovna herself, her husband Pyotr Andreevich Karepin, their children and grandchildren, discovered by the authors of the article in the funds of the Central State Archive of the City of Moscow (CSA of Moscow), are published. The materials of the archival “Case of the Moscow Noble Deputy Assembly” are introduced into scientific circulation, including documents related to the inclusion in the 3rd part of the Genealogical Book of the Moscow Province of Dostoevsky’s sister’s husband, P. A. Karepin (1838) and the family of their son, the eldest nephew of the writer A. P. Karepin (1911). The documents in this case include the form list of P. A. Karepin, the decree on the resignation of A. P. Karepin, copies of metric documents on the wedding and death of Dostoevsky’s nephew, and the birth of his son, Vladimir Karepin. The published archival materials fill in significant factual gaps in the pedigree of the genealogical branch of Varvara Mikhailovna Dostoevskaya-Karepina, which was published in the fundamental “Chronicle of the Generations of Dostoevskys” (2012), which was a revised and supplemented republication of the classic work of M. V. Volotsky “The Chronicle of the Generations of Dostoevsky” (1933). The Appendix contains two biographical notes: about the daughter of P. A. Karepin from his first marriage, stepdaughter of V. M. Dostoevskaya-Karepina — Yulia Petrovna Pomerantseva and her husband Nikandr Petrovich Pomerantsev.family tree, Varvara Dostoevskaya-Karepina, Karepins, Smirnovs, Pomerantsevs, The Central State Archive of Moscow Church records, confessional list, formulary list, Mikhail Volotskoy, The Chronicle of the Generations of Dostoevsky, The Chronicle of the Generations of Dostoevskys

The reason for writing this article was a letter received by the authors from the founders of the recently established local history museum in Spas-Klepiki, Ryazan region. This small town is actively working on the formation of museum funds and collections. S. A. Esenin, A. I. Kuprin, K. G. Paustovsky lived and visited here. According to the organizers, the history of the Dostoevsky family at the turn of the XX century should take a worthy place in one of the expositions. The article systematizes published and unknown archival materials about its stay in Spas-Klepiki and surrounding villages. The lands, forest and estate located here was inherited by F. M. Dostoevsky and his relatives after the death of his rich Moscow aunt A. F. Kumanina. The writer learned about the existence of Klepiki on August 19, 1879 from a letter to him from his wife, who visited the Ryazan region with their children. However, protracted litigation over the division of inheritance did not allow Dostoevsky to become a landowner legally, he did not have time to visit this land. On March 24, 1881 his widow and children were confirmed in the rights of inheritance. According to family correspondence, A. G. Dostoevskaya, accompanied by her son Fyodor, visited Spas-Klepiki in the 1880s and 1890s and stayed at the house of lawyer A. D. Povalishin. She described her way from Ryazan to the estate in her notebook of 1881, and here she also indicated the names of residents of Klepiki who could be useful to her. The writer's widow bought out the share of the estate in the Ryazan province, which was inherited by her husband's younger brother A. M. Dostoevsky. She sold part of her lands in 1895, and returned to the sale issue in 1905 at the request of her son Fyodor. Dostoevsky's son became a Ryazan nobleman in 1897, but he did not live in Ryazan permanently. The life of the Sher family, Dostoevsky's maternal relatives and co-owners of the "Kumaninsky inheritance", is connected with Spas-Klepiki. The search for Dostoevsky's documents in the Ryazan archives is relevant. Their discovery would help to reveal new facts of the writer's family’s stay in the Ryazan region and Spas-Klepiki, to expand the funds of the city’s local history museum, which needs Dostoevsky.F. M. Dostoevsky, A. G. Dostoevskaya, F. F. Dostoevsky, Spas-Klepiki, Ryazan, museum, memory, Kumanin heritage, estate, archive

The publication of the Complete Works of F. M. Dostoevsky became the main deed of his widow. Over the course of 10 years, book publication has been stable and profitable for the writer’s family. In 1893, the publisher of the weekly “Niva,” A. F. Marx, offered Anna Grigoryevna to sell him the literary rights to Dostoevsky’s works for printing them as a free supplement to his magazine. Dostoevskaya devoted a chapter of published memoirs to this transaction, but her unpublished notebooks contain additional information about both the external side of the agreement with Marx (lists, dates, notes) and the inner world of the publisher during this period (memories, experiences, doubts, comments). This article introduces into scientific circulation the materials of A. G. Dostoevskaya’s notebooks about family meetings about the sale of literary rights, details and curious stories related to the signing of an agreement with Marx. Ultimately, the deal with Marx was not as profitable as it seemed at first. It divided the publishing activities of the writer’s widow into “before” and “after” the contract: the time after the return of copyright was marked by a sharp decline in demand for Dostoevsky’s works due to the surplus of the Complete works of the Marx publishing house on the book market. The contract with “Niva’s” publisher turned out to be one of the essential circumstances in the process of termination of A. G. Dostoevskaya’s publishing activities in 1910. Despite the adverse consequences of the deal with Marx for the Dostoevsky family's book business, the writer’s widow remained friendly with “Niva’s” publisher, as evidenced by the documents provided in the article: her letter to him about the donation and publication of three letters from Dostoevsky to his brother Mikhail, as well as the mentions of the name of Marx and his publications in notebooks.Fyodor Dostoevsky, Anna Dostoevskaya, notebook, publishing house, Complete works, Adolf Marx, Niva weekly, free application, literary rights, fee, book market

The article describes and comments on the letters of Dostoevsky’s daughter Lyubov Fyodorovna to her mother in 1881–1917. Together with the replies of Anna Grigor’evna Dostoevskaya, the correspondence includes about 700 letters in which mother and daughter often discuss the issues related to the preservation of Dostoevsky’s legacy: publishing the Complete Works, staging performances based on his works, replenishing the writer’s Memorial Museum, erecting a new monument on his grave for the 30th anniversary of his death, issues of preserving documents and books. The persons and events mentioned in the letters make the epistolary of Dostoevsky’s widow and daughter a valuable historical and literary source. In combination with archival and memoir sources, Lyubov Fyodorovna’s epistolary can be used to study and comment on the biography and correspondence of Dostoevsky’s entourage. The article includes a letter from a reader from the editorial archive of “The Unknown Dostoevsky” journal, which is a response to an earlier published article and is dedicated to Ekaterina Vladislavovna Yachevskaya, the granddaughter of Faddeus Venediktovich Bulgarin, and one of L. F. Dostoevskaya’s correspondents. The Appendix contains excerpts from Lyubov Fyodorovna’s letters dedicated to representatives of related families (Bulgarins, Olkhins, Engelhardts, Tyrtovs, Rokossovskys).Lyubov Dostoevskaya, Anna Dostoevskaya, Yachevskys, Tyrtovs, Bulgarins, Engelhardts, Olkhins, Dostoevsky archive, correspondence, epistolary legacy, archival search, biography, scientific commentary

The article is devoted to the functional analysis of one of the modern adaptive models of the national literary language — the plain language. This concept is actively discussed and implemented in modern translation practice today, including in numerous literary translations of the works of Dostoevsky, the most widely read Russian writer in the world. From a historical and typological point of view, the new translation strategy correlates with the principles of the Russian translation of the first book from Dostoevsky’s reading circle — “One Hundred and Four Sacred Stories of the Old and New Testaments,” as well as the New Testament published in 1823, which includes the writer’s hard labor Gospel that became a key precedent text in his post-reformation work. The article analyzes the work performed in the early 2000s. Japanese scientist Ikuo Kameyama translated the novel “The Brothers Karamazov,” which was a representative experience of modern artistic interpretation and adaptation of Dostoevsky’s work. Thanks to the translator’s orientation to the plain language, the novel of the Russian writer found its foreignspeaking readers and became an understandable and familiar text for them.plain language, New Testament, Japanese Dostoevsky, Ikuo Kameyama, Brothers Karamazov, translation, interpretation